Anderson v. City of New Orleans, 38 F.4th 472

2012 detainee suit alleging unconstitutional conditions at Orleans Parish Prison; United States intervened; consent judgment entered in 2013.
2016 stipulated order appointed an independent compliance director and required a plan for housing detainees with serious mental-health and medical needs.
In 2017 the compliance director proposed an 89‑bed Phase III special‑needs facility; the city committed funding and approvals followed through 2018–2019.
January and March 2019 district‑court orders directed the city to move forward with short‑term measures and programming and to design/build the Phase III facility.
The city suspended work in June 2020 and moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) for relief, citing changed circumstances (COVID, population decline, funding shortfalls); magistrate judge recommended denial, district court adopted R&R in Jan. 2021.
Fifth Circuit affirmed: city failed to show the requisite changed circumstances; PLRA issue was waived and, in any event, did not justify relief; denial of Rule 60(b) was not an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60(b)(5) relief is warranted by changed circumstances	No—city failed to identify an unanticipated, significant change; OJC still inadequate; funds exist	Yes—COVID pandemic, declining inmate population, and budget shortfalls make enforcement of 2019 orders inequitable	Denied—no qualifying change: facility remains inadequate; population decline was anticipated; FEMA funds available
Whether the PLRA bars ordering the city to construct Phase III	PLRA argument was waived and, substantively, does not block enforcement here	PLRA prohibits courts from ordering the city to build a jail or to fund such a remedy	Waived (raised first in reply); even reviewed on merits under Rule 60(b)(5) it fails—no change in law to trigger relief
Whether the city waived the PLRA defense	Plaintiffs: yes—city raised PLRA only in a reply brief and thus forfeited it	City: the PLRA is a jurisdictional/independent legal bar that should be considered	Waived—magistrate and district courts treated it as forfeited; appellate court agreed it was waived in district court proceedings
Whether district court abused its discretion in denying Rule 60(b)	Plaintiffs: district court acted within discretion; city bore burden to prove changed circumstances	City: denial was an abuse because changed facts made orders inequitable	No abuse—legal issues reviewed de novo and facts for clear error; record supports denial

Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (discussing Rule 60(b)(5) relief for changed factual conditions or law)
Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (Rule 60(b)(5) standard and anticipated changes doctrine)
Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 987 F.2d 1199 (5th Cir. 1993) (Rule 60(b) may not substitute for timely appeal)
Gross v. Keen Grp. Sols., L.L.C., 18 F.4th 836 (5th Cir. 2021) (appealability of Rule 60(b) orders)
Cooper v. Noble, 33 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 1994) (standard of review for Rule 60(b) denial)
Frew v. Janek, 780 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 2015) (de novo review for legal conclusions on Rule 60(b))